More than one God in the OT?

[74x12]

Easy to prove you wrong. 1) Genesis isn’t prophecy. You’re conflating two different types of literature. 2) Genesis isn’t a Christian text. The authors had no knowledge of Jesus, so could not be referring to him.

I'm confused; where does the holy Spirit come into this equation?

 

[Kenny]

yahweh WAS a Canaanite god.

No... i think you are confusing words.

"As for the other name for God used in the Hebrew Bible, Yaweh (YHWH), this name has a very different origin than Adonai, El or Baal. This word, as far as I know, was not used by any other peoples to describe their deities. This is the only word we know that God used as a direct “name” for himself. This word simply means “I am.” Like I already said, no deity was referred to by this name (unlike el, adonai or baal). Apparently, you heard that this word developed from the generic Canaanite word for god El. I am confident that this is not true. The two words have nothing in common. Besides, we know exactly where the word came from. It came to the Jews from Moses. Its use was not an adaption of a generic word for a deity in Canaan."

Is the Hebrew god El just borrowed from Canaanite deities? Is Yahweh derived from the Caananite God El? – Evidence for Christianity

 

[darkskies]

Absolutely. But it is meaningless to use it in reference to only one being. Saying that you are unified with yourself really isn't saying anything other than maybe that you're "well-adjusted."

It doesn't say that. Here's OP:

No, but I believe the Bible teaches one God who is a unity in himself.

" A unity in himself ", meaning one single being, where " in himself " is a stress on his property of being " one " and not more than one.

Easier understood with an example:
" It's not just the piano that makes it heavy, it's heavy in itself. "
Uncommon usage, of course.

Make sense?

 

[Katzpur]

It doesn't say that. Here's OP:

" A unity in himself ", meaning one single being, where " in himself " is a stress on his property of being " one " and not more than one.

Easier understood with an example:
" It's not just the piano that makes it heavy, it's heavy in itself. "
Uncommon usage, of course.

Make sense?

Sorry, but no.

 

[Clara Tea]

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, Let Us make mankind in Our image.

Ecclesiastes 12:1
Remember also your Creators in the days of your youth.

Isaiah 54:5
For your husbands are your Makers, Whose name is Yahweh of armies.

In most Bible translations the singular form is used, but this is not correct, the words "creators, husbands, makers" in the respective verses are plural in Hebrew.

Now some would say that it is "pluralis excellentiae" or "Royal we", but if that were really the case, why don't we see this with the kings in the Bible? I have looked, not one king, Jewish or Gentile, used this kind of speech in the Bible, all kings speak about themselves in the singular.

Am I saying that there is more than one God? No, but I believe the Bible teaches one God who is a unity in himself.

It's well known that ancient Jews were polytheistic. But, one God was more powerful, and jealous. So, if you worship wrong God, or give him any notice, you might incur the wrath of the most powerful God. Hence, the religion changed to monotheism.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

No... i think you are confusing words.

"As for the other name for God used in the Hebrew Bible, Yaweh (YHWH), this name has a very different origin than Adonai, El or Baal. This word, as far as I know, was not used by any other peoples to describe their deities. This is the only word we know that God used as a direct “name” for himself. This word simply means “I am.” Like I already said, no deity was referred to by this name (unlike el, adonai or baal). Apparently, you heard that this word developed from the generic Canaanite word for god El. I am confident that this is not true. The two words have nothing in common. Besides, we know exactly where the word came from. It came to the Jews from Moses. Its use was not an adaption of a generic word for a deity in Canaan."

Is the Hebrew god El just borrowed from Canaanite deities? Is Yahweh derived from the Caananite God El? – Evidence for Christianity

Okay, if you're really willing to know what Israeli scholars say then read these excerpts:

Scholar Nissim Amzallag, of Ben-Gurion University argues that the deity was originally a god of the forge and patron of metallurgists during the Bronze Age (c. 3500-1200 BCE).

....there are many [Bible] passages which make clear that this deity was also worshipped by other peoples in Canaan. Edomites, Kenites, Moabites, and Midianites all worshipped Yahweh to one degree or another.

....initially he [Yahweh] seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El.

Yahweh

How YHWH Became God

The idea that the Hebrew god once had a consort, Asherah, was a shock to some biblical scholars.

How YHWH Became God

Jewish god Yahweh originated in Canaanite Vulcan, says ...

Was Yahweh Originally an Edomite or Canaanite God?

Yahweh, the Canaanite God of Metallurgy? - SAGE Journals

It's abundantly clear that YHWH is the same Yahweh that originated among the Canaanites and the Israelites just adopted him.

 

[Clara Tea]

God is an inseparable unity? Not if you believe that Christ is a piece of God.

According to some parts of the bible, God is God, and nothing else is God. Jesus is the son of God, and can be called Lord.

 

[darkskies]

Sorry, but no.

Let's make it simpler.

Replace "a unity" with "one".
" God who is one in himself "

Now compare with the example (which I'll change it a bit to suit context):
- " It's not the piano that makes it heavy, it's heavy in itself. "
- " It's not the Trinity that makes God one, God is one in himself. "

It's obvious that a Trinity would not make God one.
Therefore the "in himself" is only used to stress on that.

 

[Bob G]

Isaiah 54 v 5
For thy Maker is thine husband ; the Lord of hosts is his name ... the God of the whole earth he shall be called .

just one of the many examples that God is singular.

your play on words is just that , you need a definite number to even have a case . Your words are very vague to say the least . Many times God says he is One .

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Isaiah 54 v 5
For thy Maker is thine husband ; the Lord of hosts is his name ... the God of the whole earth he shall be called .

just one of the many examples that God is singular.

your play on words is just that , you need a definite number to even have a case . Your words are very vague to say the least . Many times God says he is One .

That passage is about the wife of Baha'u'llah, in case you were not aware.

It is not actually talking about the unknowable God, it is talking about the Lord of Hosts.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, Let Us make mankind in Our image.

Ecclesiastes 12:1
Remember also your Creators in the days of your youth.

Isaiah 54:5
For your husbands are your Makers, Whose name is Yahweh of armies.

In most Bible translations the singular form is used, but this is not correct, the words "creators, husbands, makers" in the respective verses are plural in Hebrew.

Now some would say that it is "pluralis excellentiae" or "Royal we", but if that were really the case, why don't we see this with the kings in the Bible? I have looked, not one king, Jewish or Gentile, used this kind of speech in the Bible, all kings speak about themselves in the singular.

Am I saying that there is more than one God? No, but I believe the Bible teaches one God who is a unity in himself.

You have misunderstood pluralis majestatis completely and it shows in you associating with the plural "kings". It was one of the most absurd associations I have ever heard in all of the Christian apologetics I have heard so far in trying to make the "let us" into a plural of numbers. Anyway what you have done with this piece is attempting to make Judaism a polytheistic religion.

Nevertheless, if you think this this plural is a plural of numbers every time, were there many Moseses when God says he has sent Moses as "Gods" to the pharaoh? Please explain.

 

[Kooky]

No... i think you are confusing words.

"As for the other name for God used in the Hebrew Bible, Yaweh (YHWH), this name has a very different origin than Adonai, El or Baal. This word, as far as I know, was not used by any other peoples to describe their deities. This is the only word we know that God used as a direct “name” for himself. This word simply means “I am.” Like I already said, no deity was referred to by this name (unlike el, adonai or baal). Apparently, you heard that this word developed from the generic Canaanite word for god El. I am confident that this is not true. The two words have nothing in common. Besides, we know exactly where the word came from. It came to the Jews from Moses. Its use was not an adaption of a generic word for a deity in Canaan."

Is the Hebrew god El just borrowed from Canaanite deities? Is Yahweh derived from the Caananite God El? – Evidence for Christianity

That etymology is apparently controversial, as it seems to have been introduced by the authors of Genesis after exclusive worship of Yaweh had already become widespread. An equally plausible etymology might be derived from Yaweh's origins as a Canaanite storm god, though there is also the theory that his cult was imported from Egypt (which is circumstantially plausible due to the close economic connections between Canaan and Egypt during the Bronze Age, but I don't believe is particularly well supported by either textual or archaeological evidence).

Yahweh - Wikipedia

 

[Kooky]

You have misunderstood pluralis majestatis completely and it shows in you associating with the plural "kings". It was one of the most absurd associations I have ever heard in all of the Christian apologetics I have heard so far in trying to make the "let us" into a plural of numbers. Anyway what you have done with this piece is attempting to make Judaism a polytheistic religion.

Could you please stop assuming that everyone discussing the ancient origins of Judaism is a Christian fundamentalist out to discredit your religion?

Some of us are simply interested in debating the historical and archaeological facts to be found in ancient religion, thanks.

 

[firedragon]

Could you please stop assuming that everyone discussing the ancient origins of Judaism is a Christian fundamentalist out to discredit your religion?

Some of us are simply interested in debating the historical and archaeological facts to be found in ancient religion, thanks.

Alright. So please explain the question I asked.

Nevertheless, if you think this this plural is a plural of numbers every time, were there many Moseses when God says he has sent Moses as "Gods" to the pharaoh? Please explain.

 

[Kooky]

Alright. So please explain the question I asked.

Nevertheless, if you think this this plural is a plural of numbers every time, were there many Moseses when God says he has sent Moses as "Gods" to the pharaoh? Please explain.

I don't think it's plural forms all the time, but I don't think your claim that every single plural is in the majestic form is exceptionally strong, either, when we keep in mind that terms like e.g. El were commonly used to adress Canaanite or Ugaritic deities in the singular and those came from known polytheistic traditions.

(edit) But it is of course possible - as I have stated, I believe that by the time the Hebrew Bible was written down, its authors were likely drawing from strong traditions of henotheism, and perhaps even monotheism, already. They were certainly expending considerable effort to strengthen the position of Yhwh and undercut the legitimacy of possible other religious traditions such as the cult of Elat/Asherah.

I'm not a scholar of ancient Hebrew nor the Hebrew Bible, so I can't really adress your arguments concerning the meaning of the specific passages you are talking about.

 

[Teritos]

Nevertheless, if you think this this plural is a plural of numbers every time, were there many Moseses when God says he has sent Moses as "Gods" to the pharaoh? Please explain.

The word Elohim is not always plural, the context shows us when Elohim is plural or singular, we need to look at the verb, if the Hebrew text says: Elohim speaks.... then Elohim is singular in this case.
But if the Hebrew text says: Elohim speak... then it is plural.
It has nothing to with "pluralis majestatis".

 

[firedragon]

I don't think it's plural forms all the time, but I don't think your claim that every single plural is in the majestic form holds much water,

Didnt claim that. So that's a false statement you made. What we call a strawman.

particularly when we keep in mind that terms like e.g. El were commonly used to adress Canaanite or Ugaritic deities in the singular.

El is always, for ever, since forever, singular.

 

[firedragon]

The word Elohim is not always plural,

It is always, forever, since forever, plural. But pluralis majestatis. Still, its "PLURAL".

 

[Teritos]

It is always, forever, since forever, plural. But pluralis majestatis. Still, its "PLURAL".

That is not correct. If it were "Pluralis Majestatis", then the verb would not point to a singular. You have to look at the context of the verse. I explained it to you, but you don't seem to want to go into it.

 

[Kooky]

Didnt claim that. So that's a false statement you made. What we call a strawman.

So you grant the possibility that e.g. Elohim could be adressed to a plurality of deities?